I don’t know why you’re going on this crusade of using a bad source to badly make what is a very good point. Nothing in my post disagrees with yours. In fact, again, we are in agreement. It doesn’t appear that you really read my post.
Like what I said:
I don’t see where I suggest anything different than you and “do the OP a disservice”.
So we’re going to ignore that my post discusses teaching strategy of undergraduate schools, the difference between CS in academics and industry when it comes to CS reputation, and again, directly discusses fit versus reputation?
How is all of that “counterproductive” while your post can simply be read past. Again, why the crusade?
Facilities mentioned in the post have absolutely zero effect on learning in CS or the CS programs themselves. All you need to practice CS really is a single computer for yourself (student owned), an internet connection, and a classroom. From there, the difference is knowledge, whether it be professors teaching or working with their research. How many computers on campus makes no difference.